You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: By carefull with account history index, it is not reliable
Here's an important follow-up question:
Is it supposed to be?
Or rather, is this a problem with the system as deployed or with a particular node not doing the job it's supposed to? Because if it's a problem with just the node, that can be fixed pretty easily and worked around in the meantime. If it's a problem with the system as a whole as deployed, and you can't really depend on the history account index for new account transactions on any node other than API.Steemit.com – that's an entirely different problem.
This is the fundamental problem of developers that do not document their code. To make my own thoughts clear, this is an issue with the Steem blockchain developers not with Beem or its developer. There is no promise that things should work this way and no warning that it doesn't but we naturally assume they should, and then we have angst when they do not work a certain way.
This problem involving history indexes should be mentioned to the Beem documentation. Although we don't know if it is a permanent problem or considered a bug by the Steem team.
You are right, I will add this to the beem docu. I think the solution is to use an index which is calculated from the block number, trx index, the operation index and an virtual op index.
Posted using Partiko Android
We expect index numbers to be:
Now, #3 is broken because of something outside of scope of Beem. I don't think you should put too much time into working around something that is probably a bug. Documenting that this natural assumption (#3) is wrong (hopefully temporarily), is a good idea, though.
If you are going to give the API users #1 #2 #3 by calculating and deciding on a order in a way that is independent of the Steem RPC node, then we could continue to use the history index number as a key to our transactions we store in our app's database's.